On (not) Stereotyping Evangelicals

Stereotyping clouds analysis. I learned this lesson during my years as an intelligence analyst following Soviet weapons programs. On many occasions we found that political conservatives were prevented by their ideology from seeing that change would come to the Soviet Union.

Today the Democratic Party and mainstream media hold stereotypes that are causing them to lump evangelicals, born again Christians, and fundamentalists together. Their stereotyping of evangelicals as “right wing Christians” and “moral values voters” is likely to prevent them from adapting to a changing political environment.

Here are links to three pieces that may help to undo these stereotypes:

From Terry Mattingly, we read
"A new survey by the Barna Group claims that "born again Christians" -- who cast 53 percent of the votes in this election -- backed George W. Bush by a 62 to 38 percent margin. Meanwhile, "evangelical" voters backed Bush by an 85 to 15 percent margin.

What's the difference? In Barna's system, all "evangelicals" are "born again Christians," but not vice versa. In his polls, true "evangelicals" are a mere 7 percent of the voting population, while other "born again Christians" make up an addition 31 percent.

The difference between these groups is crucial for those studying the politics of social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage."

From Christian History professor David Steinmetz at Duke University
"Democrats like to regard themselves as more cosmopolitan than Republicans. But they have been woefully unsophisticated in their analysis of evangelicals, whom they tend to paint in monochromatic hues. Evangelicals seem to them to belong to an alien "retro" America, whose values they do not share.

In point of fact there always have been, and still are, evangelicals in the Democratic Party, including former President Jimmy Carter, who once caused distress in the media by announcing he was "born again." At least 22 percent of self-identified evangelicals voted for John Kerry, a number buoyed by black evangelicals, who vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates". (Thanks to the ever observant Lane Core for spotting this one.)

And then there’s David Brooks in today’s NYT
"There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them. Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored.
...
Politicians, especially Democrats, are now trying harder to appeal to people of faith. But people of faith are not just another interest group, like gun owners. You have to begin by understanding the faith. And you can't understand this rising global movement if you don't meet its authentic representatives".

I hope that the Democrats take David Brooks advice seriously. My expectation is that they would rather pray (privately, of course) that the Republicans will self-destruct.

Comments

[Nancy Smith]

CNN's recent special "The Fight for Faith" used Southern Baptists in South Carolina as their main source and equated evangelicals with fundamentalists. I was furious and wrote to them about it. Not that it did any good!

Nancy